[Lerkfish]

Ok, so abandoning the other thread, let's open it some:

IF Bush is NOT increasing worldwide stability and safety from terrorism, then several questions/topics arise:

FIRST: as has been raised, I think by DaveSimon, how do we or should we define "stability"?

1. How does (or doesn't) instability or destabilizing regimes further the "war on terror"? In what ways can toppling regimes decrease terrorism?

2. If we are no safer from terrorism than we were before the "war on terror", how do we measure its effectiveness to determine whether its a policy to continue or abandon? Under what circumstances would it be considered a success or failure?

3. If we are not introducing stability, how do we address that instability long term in order to discourage terrorism? In what specific and concrete ways will regime changes reduce the threat of terrorism?

4. If the war on terror has not increased worldwide safety from terrorism, A: what specific and concrete effects has it manifested worldwide? and B: What should it be doing to reduce terrorism that it isn't at this point?

5. When or how can we stop the "war on terrorism" if an when it is shown to be either ineffective or worse, exacerbating the terrorist threat?

6. If the war on terrorism does not work, what is our plan B, C, or D for resolving terrorism and preventing attacks?

[lil'babykitten]

I would say that eklipse's definition of stability from the other thread is about right, at least in my view it is.

less fighting, fewer angry people, less 'terrorism', greater unity amongst a countries people and democratically elected (and hence better and more widely accepted) governments to govern them.

But if it surfaces that people have a differing opinion on what stability is, this thread could become very problematic!

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
1. How does (or doesn't) instability or destabilizing regimes further the "war on terror"? In what ways can toppling regimes decrease terrorism?

The instability arising from this War on Terror is partly what is wrong with it. So far, two countries have undergone regime removal-not not change because to change something means you need to replace it with something else. Whilst the short term benefit (in the eyes of the people doing it) is to remove what is perceived by them to be a serious threat. This works for public opinion. The US government had to be seen to be doing something after 9/11 to combat terrorism. Sure there were some positives in their actions, but when you look at the long term result you start to see the major errors made when such pre-emptive action was planned. A lot of people in both Afghanistan and Iraq did not appreciate an American presence simply because people don't take too kindly to having foreign occupiers on their land, taking things in to their own hands. What right do they really have? This is what creates hatred, this is what motivates people to become suicide bombers or to plot against the US.
I don't see the toppling of regimes as a solution to terrorism only as a catalyst to increasing the terrorist threat. As I discussed in my thread, to decrease terrorism, you must go to the roots of it. Indeed not only has Bush failed to examine the roots but he has actually taken steps to produce more terrorists.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
2. If we are no safer from terrorism than we were before the "war on terror", how do we measure its effectiveness to determine whether its a policy to continue or abandon? Under what circumstances would it be considered a success or failure?

I would say it already is a failure. Unfortunately I doubt this will be realised until the next attack on American soil. Even so, if Bush is still in power he may very well choose to go about combating it in the same pointless way. As for measuring it's effectiveness we have two examples to analyse. The first in Afghanistan, a complete mess already abandoned by the US. Al Queda is likely to be operating just as well as it was pre-invasion. As for Iraq, we already see the work of the new terrorists, the bombing of the UN building and the sabotage of pipe-lines, the general anti-america feeling.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
3. If we are not introducing stability, how do we address that instability long term in order to discourage terrorism? In what specific and concrete ways will regime changes reduce the threat of terrorism?

Regime change which is probably only possible through military means is not the way to go about it. If the US is unhappy with the actions of a government they should seek to resolve a situation diplomatically. If the concern is over terrorist groups operating in a particular country. 'Warning' that countries government over possible repercussions does nothing but strain relations and side track focus from those that are the problem. Understanding why those terrorist groups are there and then seeking to remove the reasons than incense them is the way to go.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
4. If the war on terror has not increased worldwide safety from terrorism, A: what specific and concrete effects has it manifested worldwide? and B: What should it be doing to reduce terrorism that it isn't at this point?

A: It has created hate not just in the countries it targets but in people across the globe.
B: The War on Terror firstly needs to be re-named! the word 'War' implies the them against us state of mind. Even though it is exactly that, tagging it with 'war' only makes the target more determined. Efforts should be directed at investigating where these groups exist, why they exist and how to remove their motivations.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
5. When or how can we stop the "war on terrorism" if an when it is shown to be either ineffective or worse, exacerbating the terrorist threat?

It needs to be stopped now. Unfortunately stopping it is unlikely. The War on Terror is largely a neo-con idea that has been adopted by Bush. Their influence is tremendous. Protest groups show the government that a couple of people are opposed to their actions but in the long run are ineffective. (as we saw) The neo-cons are successful because they know how to influence, they have good media contacts, they have offices, computers and government contacts. They know legislators. They know people that have influence and this is why they get so far. Some poorly dressed guy with long uncombed hair waving a banner in the streets is far less likely to be taken seriously than a smartly dressed guy with contacts.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
6. If the war on terrorism does not work, what is our plan B, C, or D for resolving terrorism and preventing attacks?

I believe I have addressed this one earlier in my ramble!

[mr. natural]

Posted by Lerkfish:

5. When or how can we stop the "war on terrorism" if an when it is shown to be either ineffective or worse, exacerbating the terrorist threat? (and)4B. What should it be doing to reduce terrorism that it isn't at this point?

Along with lil'babykitten's fine remarks about all this, and as an attempt to round out Lerkfish's questions, and by round about way of trying to answer the questions 5 & 4b, may I suggest the following:

From Wendell Berry's essay: A Citizen's Response to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America

THE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY published by the White House in September 2002, if carried out, would amount to a radical revision of the political character of our nation. Its central and most significant statement is this:

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists... (p. 6)

A democratic citizen must deal here first of all with the question, Who is this "we"? It is not the "we" of the Declaration of Independence, which referred to a small group of signatories bound by the conviction that "governments [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed." And it is not the "we" of the Constitution, which refers to " the people [my emphasis] of the United States."

This "we" of the new strategy can refer only to the president. It is a royal "we". A head of state, preparing to act alone in starting a preemptive war, will need to justify his intention by secret information, and will need to plan in secret and execute his plan without forewarning. The idea of a government acting alone in preemptive war is inherently undemocratic, for it does not require or even permit the president to obtain the consent of the governed. As a policy, this new strategy depends on the acquiescence of a public kept fearful and ignorant, subject to manipulation by the executive power, and on the compliance of an intimidated and office dependent legislature. To the extent that a government is secret, it cannot be democratic or its people free. By this new doctrine, the president alone may start a war against any nation at any time, and with no more forewarning than preceded the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Would be participating citizens of a democratic nation, unwilling to have their consent coerced or taken for granted, therefore have no choice but to remove themselves from the illegitimate constraints of this "we" in as immediate and public a way as possible.

THE ALLEGED JUSTIFICATION for this new strategy is the recent emergence in the United States of international terrorism. But why the events of September 11, 2001, horrifying as they were, should have called for a radical new investiture of power in the executive branch is not clear.

The National Security Strategy defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents" (p. 5) . This is truly a distinct kind of violence, but to imply by the word "terrorism" that this sort of terror is the work exclusively of "terrorists" is misleading. The "legitimate" warfare of technologically advanced nations likewise is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents. The distinction between the intention to perpetrate violence against innocents, as in "terrorism," and the willingness to do so, as in "war," is not a source of comfort.

Supposedly, if a nation perpetrates violence officially -- whether to bomb an enemy airfield or a hospital it is not guilty of "terrorism." But there is no need to hesitate over the difference between "terrorism" and any violence or threat of violence that is terrifying. The National Security Strategy wishes to cause "terrorism" to be seen "in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide" (p. 6) but not in the same light as war. It accepts and affirms the legitimacy of war.

THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM is not, strictly speaking, a war against nations, even though it has already involved international war in Afghanistan and presidential threats against other nations. This is a war against " the embittered few " " thousands of trained terrorists " -- who are " at large "(p. 5) among many millions of others who are, in the language of this document, " innocents ," and thus are deserving of our protection.

Unless we are willing to kill innocents in order to kill the guilty, the need to be lethal will be impeded constantly by the need to be careful. Because we must suppose a new supply of villains to be always in the making, we can expect the war on terrorism to be more or less endless, endlessly costly and endlessly supportive of a thriving bureaucracy.

Unless, that is, we should become willing to ask why, and to do something about the causes. Why do people become terrorists? Such questions arise from the recognition that problems have causes. There is, however, no acknowledgement in The National Security Strategy that terrorism might have a cause that could possibly be discovered and possibly remedied. "The embittered few," it seems, are merely "evil."

MUCH OF THE OBSCURITY of our effort so far against terrorism originates in this now official idea that the enemy is evil and that we are (therefore) good, which is the precise mirror image of the official idea of the terrorists...

NOTE: The above link and copy here is from a slightly abridged version of the entire essay as published. The whole is worth reading if you can but here I wanted to only post the above and my emphasis in bold.

However, to get back to the original or root question of What To Do about Terrorism, I think Berry and also David Ehrenfeld are thoughtful folk whose words we would all do well to consider. In Ehrenfeld's most recent essay, The Joseph Strategy, he suggests (as does Berry in passing) that:

We are well into the unfolding energy emergency -- our dependence on oil from the Middle East, where we have imposed our military and political presence and culture, has spawned increasing terrorism and tumultuous unrest. As we dangle from an oil-soaked lifeline, thousands of people in the Islamic world are struggling to apply a lighted match. Terrorism against a vast, complex, interlinked industrial society such as ours is very cheap and relatively easy to accomplish; defense against terrorism is fabulously expensive, compromises our civil liberties, and is not very effective. The best way to minimize the threat of terrorism is to eliminate our most vulnerable and provocative activities, the first of which is our heavy use of imported oil.

Ehrenfeld is smart enough to know that we will likely never eliminate "terrorism" but does suggest a way of "minimizing" the threat: e.g., "eliminate our most vulnerable and provocative activities, the first of which is our heavy use of imported oil" (especially from the middle east).

He doesn't say exactly what these "provocative activities" are, but does he really need too? We all pretty much know what they are when it comes to the middle eastern or Islamic fueled terrorism.

And so it goes until we wean ourselves off oil (or are forced to - which is not a pretty option but certainly one we may readily bring about; nevermind bankrupt ourselves doing as we are doing now).

Anyway, if you've never read such essays by such folks as I've suggested here, now's your chance. The quality of discourse by these two writer's is well worth the effort.

[Lerkfish]

thanks, guys for posting thoughtful posts in this thread.

The questions I raise would be valid independent of political party.
Even though the commander in chief has leeway to wage war in specific individual instances, when the war being waged is vague enough that it could conceivably be waged against every other country in the world at some point, depending on the president's evaluation of threat, how does one pull the plug on that vague war if it does indeed need to be pulled?

I think this is the loophole that is being exploited here. If the President were waging war against specific countries, there could be vigorous debate and counterbalance on the wisdom of doing so and decisions could be taken on a case by case basis, with congress weighing in and having a voice.
But when its a war on the nebulous enemy of "terrorism", its essentially a carte blanche to invade ANY country for ANY reason, as long as the President is sufficiently convinced there is evidence of terrorism.

How do we stop that if the president becomes a loose cannon? Even if you totally agree with Bush in the present, what's to prevent future presidents that you might not agree with from invading every country in the world, just on his whim? The concept of checks and balances is awry when a blank check is written to wage war on undefined enemies.

[Lerkfish]

US warns of heightened terrorism threat

of note in the article:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The State Department is warning U.S. citizens and employees of an increased possibility of more terrorist attacks coinciding with the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

The "worldwide caution," issued Wednesday, warns that al Qaeda is pursuing actions "more devastating" than the deadly plane hijackings two years ago, and said chemical or biological weapons could be used.

The State Department said it is receiving more indications that al Qaeda is preparing to strike U.S. interests overseas. However, a department official said that while there is no credible information of a possible attack, there is a lot of chatter that something is imminent.

"We have got to figure al Qaeda is not sitting on their hands," said the official. "They are out there planning yet another terrorist attack."

this appears to be saying the opposite of what many claim: that the war of terror is reducing the threat.

If anything, this appears to support the contention that terrorism, and specifically al-quaida, is not only NOT eliminated, but threatening attack of even greater destruction.

Again, I ask the question:

2. If we are no safer from terrorism than we were before the "war on terror", how do we measure its effectiveness to determine whether its a policy to continue or abandon? Under what circumstances would it be considered a success or failure?

[AKcrab]

If the war on terrorism is about making the United States safer, wouldn't a reasonable course of action be identifying exactly what our enemy wants?

What do they want? Are any of their demands reasonable?

I've heard Rumsfeld and company say that "we won't give in to terrorist threats" or "we won't be strong-armed", but at some point you have to negotiate with your enemy, or destroy them entirely, or the war will *never* be over.

I think it's rational to say that we will never be able to wipe out terrorism as long as the source of anger is still present.

So what is the source of anger?
What the hell do these groups want?

(I'm not sure this is on topic, but it's sorta "pick a iraq/war/terrorism thread and go with it".)

[Face Ache]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...341770496.html

[gralem]

I couldn't agree more. Let's restore the Taliban to power in Afghanistan. Take women's rights back to the stone age--I mean, really, what was Bush thinking putting someone in charge who would allow girls to attend school and women to see doctors?!! This is just too much! Women don't have those kinds of rights!!!

And Sadam. Let's find the poor guy, apologize for the wrongful deaths of his sons and put the guy back in power. We can exit peacefully and let everything get back to normal in Iraq. Sure some people now have electricity and clean water. Sadam can quickly revert it back to the "good old days". And once no one has water or power, he can start killing the kurds! That would be the best.

I honestly have no stand on the "war on terror", but I think the ends in these situations just do NOT justify the means.

---gralem

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by gralem:
Let's find the poor guy, apologize for the wrongful deaths of his sons and put the guy back in power.

heheh. speak for yourself. I'm burning in Hell right now for my crimes against Iraqis. I deserved my death at the hands of the American infidels. Some folks can be redeemed. But some others that can't--they just have to die. I was of the latter ilk.

[Spliffdaddy]

"If the war on terrorism is about making the United States safer, wouldn't a reasonable course of action be identifying exactly what our enemy wants?

What do they want? Are any of their demands reasonable?"


Our enemy wants to die. That is not an unreasonable request to make of our armed forces. They are, in fact, happy to oblige.

Your point is that when people kill themselves and/or others in order to get attention - then their cause must have merit or we should try to appease them somehow. In effect, to crank open the floodgates that restrain the homicidal nutjobs and whackos who reckon themselves superior to others.

I suggest that we totally ignore ALL acts of terrorism. We don't make an effort to "understand" (lol) them. We don't bother to mention their names. Only then will terrorism cease to be an effective tool in the hands of people with ideologies that otherwise don't have merit.

I would further suggest killing the supporters, friends, and family of known terrorists. In order to confirm the terrorist's high level of self-proclaimed resolve, naturally.

"But, Spliff, won't that create more martyrs?"

Sure it will. But the last time I checked, a martyr looked and smelled a lot like a harmless rotting corpse. (no offense, Uday)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Sure it will. But the last time I checked, a martyr looked and smelled a lot like a harmless rotting corpse. (no offense, Uday)

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Your point is that when people kill themselves and/or others in order to get attention - then their cause must have merit or we should try to appease them somehow. In effect, to crank open the floodgates that restrain the homicidal nutjobs and whackos who reckon themselves superior to others.

So what do they want? My point is not that their cause must have merit, my point is I don't know what the hell they want. If they simply want to destroy "western culture" then there can be no other solution, but if the U.S. getting out of Saudi will make us safer, what makes that unreasonable?

[Lerkfish]

I"m bumping this thread because recent terrorists attacks, especially those claimed by Al Queda, point to the conclusion that the war on terror is ineffective at reducing the worldwide risk of terrorism.

Proponents of the war on terror, until recently, have claimed that terrorist attacks have dwindled and that proved the justification for the war on terror.
Now that terror attacks are on the rise, the same proponents claim that proves the justification for the war on terror.

This only shows that efficacy or results have no bearing on how proponents of the WOT determine the justifications. This also implies that there is no point at which proponents will abandon such a war. If attacks decrease, it will continue because it "works", if they increase, it will continue because "more work has to be done".


this returns me to my previous conclusion: There is no way to end the war on terror. Once begun, we are locked into a perpetual conflict, much like the novel 1984.

Is this desirable? If not, what can we do to remedy this situation?

At what point, and under what conditions, will we determine that the WOT is counterproductive and abandon its tactics?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Are any of their demands reasonable?

Not until they are reasonable, as evidenced by stopping the bombings.

Until then, they should be hunted and eradicated. When they want to deal with us peacefully, then we can deal with them peacefully. As long as they want to kill us, then they cannot expect for us to allow them to do as they wish.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Not until they are reasonable, as evidenced by stopping the bombings.

Until then, they should be hunted and eradicated. When they want to deal with us peacefully, then we can deal with them peacefully. As long as they want to kill us, then they cannot expect for us to allow them to do as they wish.

chicken, egg...egg, chicken.

They commit terrorist acts because they have no voice, and we refuse to listen because they commit terrorist acts. Further, we bring more violence into this recidivism, which increases the violent quotient....

c'mon, where does the cycle end? where can it end? complete annihilation of one side or the other, AS LONG AS we continue to react viscerally instead of acting proactively to end the cycle.

[lil'babykitten]

I think we are nearing WW3. Seriously.

The cycles of violence continue and now they are spreading to countries you wouldn't expect to see involved.

[version]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I think we are nearing WW3. Seriously.

The cycles of violence continue and now they are spreading to countries you wouldn't expect to see involved.

Sound spretty much deliberate to me, this isn't happening due to some terrorist groups causign mayehm, there's a greater force behind it all, and it seems to be serving a certain countries benefit.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
They commit terrorist acts because they have no voice...

They have all the voice they need to make their message heard. 'No voice' is a flimsy excuse that holds no water whatsoever.

However, simply because their message is heard does not mean that those listening will agree. Perhaps their problem is that they do not realize this.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Millennium:
They have all the voice they need to make their message heard. 'No voice' is a flimsy excuse that holds no water whatsoever.

However, simply because their message is heard does not mean that those listening will agree. Perhaps their problem is that they do not realize this.

In the case of the Palestinians, their grievances were not acknowledged by any international body until they began blowing themselves up.
Now isn't that a sad state of affairs.

[thunderous_funker]

I think terrorism as an attention getter is rapidly fading form usage.

Once upon a time, you committed some violent and shocking act, got everyone's attention, and then issued your message or demands.

Increasingly over the course of the Palestinian struggle and now with Al'Queda, I believe it is simply the ultimate form of guerilla warfare. They aren't trying to be heard or force negotiation. I think they are merely conducting the most ruthless form of warfare within their means.

So the old adage of "never negogiate with terrorists" is less and less pragmatic or realistic. Sure, once upon a time when all terrorists wanted was attention or for certain demands to be met, this might have made sense. Especially when terrorists were so isolated and marginal.

But now, its akin to saying, "never talk to the enemy about how to end the war". Its like fighting a conventional war and rejecting the idea that there can ever be a ceasefire or armistace.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
In the case of the Palestinians, their grievances were not acknowledged by any international body until they began blowing themselves up.
Now isn't that a sad state of affairs.

A good example to illustrate my point. Not too many years ago, a suicide bomber was simply a means of attracting the media to the plight of Palestinians.

Well, their plight is no longer a secret. Everyone knows what is going on.

Palestinians are not blowing people up to get noticed any more. Getting noticed didn't change anything. In fact, in many ways it got worse.

Now they blowing people up in order to win the war for themselves by the most ruthless means available to them. That is why the practice has become so widespread. Its not just for Ideolouges and Radicals any more. Now its roughtly akin to joining a Militia and taking up arms against your oppressors. Its not a statement, any more, its a military tactic.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this returns me to my previous conclusion: There is no way to end the war on terror. Once begun, we are locked into a perpetual conflict, much like the novel 1984.

Is this desirable? If not, what can we do to remedy this situation?

At what point, and under what conditions, will we determine that the WOT is counterproductive and abandon its tactics?

The Current situation serves exactly two groups of people:

1. The terrorists, who have no end of new recruits driven to them by the obvious injustice and idiocy of American policy, and

2. The US administration, who will always have a "good" excuse to invade country after country and turn them all into havens of "democracy", US-style.

#2 is why the current stituation is highly unlikely to change.

-s*

[Spliffdaddy]

Terrorists are created by Americans?


Before I laugh uncontrollably - tell me you're just kidding.


So, if we meet their demands, will they stop being terrorists?

Or will they just keep wanting more things from us?


The 9/11 terrorists made their desire pretty clear. They want Westerners dead. What can we do to please them? to make them happy? Jim Jones some Kool-Aid and gather 'round?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
They want Westerners dead.

Why do you think that is?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
They have all the voice they need to make their message heard. 'No voice' is a flimsy excuse that holds no water whatsoever.

However, simply because their message is heard does not mean that those listening will agree. Perhaps their problem is that they do not realize this.

question: if they had control over their situation, would they need to resort to terrorism? wouldn't they just effect the changes they seek?
Who do they have to convince? The U.S. and Insrael...right? who are their targets?

This isn't rocket science.

I'm not condoning terrorism, its just wrong, but I'm saying the REASON it exists is a lack of control or say over their own situation. If you are in control, you have no need to launch attacks...against whom would you launch them? yourself?

terrorism is the act of the powerless against the powerful. If there were equity, there would be no terror.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Why do you think that is?

Because they're delusional bastards that value hatred more than human life?

[finboy]

Originally posted by AKcrab:

What do they want? Are any of their demands reasonable?

They want to kill Americans. I know that doesn't really fit into peoples' pictures of happiness and harmony, but that's the way it is. No amount of wishful thinking and warm fuzzies will change it.

Some of them want to enslave people to their version of Islam. I know that doesn't really fit into peoples' pictures of happiness and harmony, but that's the way it is. No amount of wishful thinking and warm fuzzies will change it.

Their "arguments" and "reasons" are absolutely as relevant as those that Hitler or Mao or Joe Stalin had when they killed millions upon millions of their own people in the name of power. Their "demands" were irrelevant the instant they declared a willingness to step outside reasonable behavior to achieve them, and the only correct response to force is force.

Actually, America is being astoundingly culturally sensitive and forthright by respecting the enemy's wish to die.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Terrorists are created by Americans?

Originally posted by finboy:
Actually, America is being astoundingly culturally sensitive and forthright by respecting the enemy's wish to die.

That attitude - even if in jest (especially if in jest) - sure as hell makes *me* want to break something.

-s*

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Because they're delusional bastards that value hatred more than human life?

Well, they would probably say: 'Because Americans are delusional bastards that value profit more than human life'.

[Lerkfish]

Posted on : 08-25-2003 04:07 PM ( here it is, 7 months later, and the situation is even worse, so I re-ask the question:

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Ok, so abandoning the other thread, let's open it some:

IF Bush is NOT increasing worldwide stability and safety from terrorism, then several questions/topics arise:

FIRST: as has been raised, I think by DaveSimon, how do we or should we define "stability"?

1. How does (or doesn't) instability or destabilizing regimes further the "war on terror"? In what ways can toppling regimes decrease terrorism?

2. If we are no safer from terrorism than we were before the "war on terror", how do we measure its effectiveness to determine whether its a policy to continue or abandon? Under what circumstances would it be considered a success or failure?

3. If we are not introducing stability, how do we address that instability long term in order to discourage terrorism? In what specific and concrete ways will regime changes reduce the threat of terrorism?

4. If the war on terror has not increased worldwide safety from terrorism, A: what specific and concrete effects has it manifested worldwide? and B: What should it be doing to reduce terrorism that it isn't at this point?

5. When or how can we stop the "war on terrorism" if an when it is shown to be either ineffective or worse, exacerbating the terrorist threat?

6. If the war on terrorism does not work, what is our plan B, C, or D for resolving terrorism and preventing attacks?

another deadly car bombing shakes Iraq
four more arrested in Spain bombings
Pakistan new ally against Al Queda

(of note in the pakistan article:

Speaking in Islamabad on Thursday where he is meeting with President Pervez Musharraf, America's top diplomat said Washington will designate Pakistan a major, non-NATO ally, making it easier for the country to buy advanced U.S. weapons.

His announcement came despite U.S. concern about the recent nuclear proliferation row involving the founder of Pakistan's nuclear program.

Earlier this year, Abdul Qadeer Khan admitted he gave nuclear weapons technology to other countries.

But Musharraf has been a steadfast ally of the United Sates in the war against terror, despite considerable pressure from Pakistan's mostly Muslim population.

palestinians: Isreal strikes 4 in Gaza
mortar attacks
republicans blast Spain's new government

[ghost_flash]

Let's give them Israel, Spain, France, Germany, and Russia. That's my final offer.

Now will all the hate stop?
No.

They want the USA as well. Do you want to give it to them?
Yes?
No?

If you answered yes. Move to Bagdhad immediatly, lose your turn to vote.
If you answered no, and you are of those arguing against the "WAR" on terror, STFU.
If you answered no, and you have been backing up your views to justify the "WAR" on terror,then carry on.

You see, I know what they want, and what they do not want.

They don't want Europe. They want the USA! They want the USA to fall. That is all.

[Orion27]

I submit times and cultural sensitivities have changed. Or have they? More people died
in 911 than Pearl Harbor. The Germans reigned terror on London and eastern Europe.
The Japanese reigned terror in the far east. It took two nuclear bombs to stop the Japanese. It took the firebombing of German cities to subdue the Germans. it is up to indigenous populations to root out the evil doers. If they don't have the incentive we must give them one. What are we waiting for?

[Zimphire]

This thread proves that if you have the desire to point out only negatives, you can make even the nicest thing look bad.

Want me to post how evil candy is?

Disney word?

Love?

I can do it. Just post all negatives and then declare I was right after all.

Wont be very honest.

But boy it will sure make me think I am smart.

*pats on back*

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Let's give them Israel, Spain, France, Germany, and Russia. That's my final offer.

Now will all the hate stop?
No.

They want the USA as well. Do you want to give it to them?
Yes?
No?

If you answered yes. Move to Bagdhad immediatly, lose your turn to vote.
If you answered no, and you are of those arguing against the "WAR" on terror, STFU.
If you answered no, and you have been backing up your views to justify the "WAR" on terror,then carry on.

You see, I know what they want, and what they do not want.

They don't want Europe. They want the USA! They want the USA to fall. That is all.

I don't think this addresses the original query:

F Bush is NOT increasing worldwide stability and safety from terrorism, then several questions/topics arise:

FIRST: as has been raised, I think by DaveSimon, how do we or should we define "stability"?

1. How does (or doesn't) instability or destabilizing regimes further the "war on terror"? In what ways can toppling regimes decrease terrorism?

2. If we are no safer from terrorism than we were before the "war on terror", how do we measure its effectiveness to determine whether its a policy to continue or abandon? Under what circumstances would it be considered a success or failure?

3. If we are not introducing stability, how do we address that instability long term in order to discourage terrorism? In what specific and concrete ways will regime changes reduce the threat of terrorism?

4. If the war on terror has not increased worldwide safety from terrorism, A: what specific and concrete effects has it manifested worldwide? and B: What should it be doing to reduce terrorism that it isn't at this point?

5. When or how can we stop the "war on terrorism" if an when it is shown to be either ineffective or worse, exacerbating the terrorist threat?

6. If the war on terrorism does not work, what is our plan B, C, or D for resolving terrorism and preventing attacks?

try again.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This thread proves that if you have the desire to point out only negatives, you can make even the nicest thing look bad.

Want me to post how evil candy is?

Disney word?

Love?

I can do it. Just post all negatives and then declare I was right after all.

Wont be very honest.

But boy it will sure make me think I am smart.

*pats on back*

I don't think this addresses the original query:


try again.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
So what do they want? My point is not that their cause must have merit, my point is I don't know what the hell they want. If they simply want to destroy "western culture" then there can be no other solution, but if the U.S. getting out of Saudi will make us safer, what makes that unreasonable?

Given the American reaction to what terrorists want (ie: do the exact opposite), I think the most effective demand a terrorist could make is that Americans live. We'd see Americans committing suicide by the thousands.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I don't think this addresses the original query:


try again.

I doesn't have to. I was just pointing out the obvious.

I know I shouldn't have to but...

[Orion27]

daimoni:
"A more in depth history than the one currently taught in American schools.

Winning the War was great. But we didn't need to drop the Bomb(s). We did it because we wanted to. Not because we had to."

And just What is your revisionist take on things? The Japs were going to give up anyway?
We would have been better off making a Marine invasion of the mainland? My hindsight perspective is we stopped them cold. Done. Fini. Which is exactly what our enemies would like to do to us if they could. I say take it to them now or we will be fighting for the next 50 years. We can sell them the tools to rebuild afterward. We are not making it painfull enough for those on the fence to see the handwriting on the wall. As long as these thugs and murderers are allowed to operate with impunity and without a preemptive defense by the West they will. I see nothing we have done to incite such hatred except the lashing out by a bunch of self loathing fanatics. I hate myself, I hate you. I want to kill myself, I will take you with me. No your not MF!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Orion27:
daimoni:
Winning the War was great. But we didn't need to drop the Bomb(s). We did it because we wanted to. Not because we had to."

Yes we wanted to save thousands of American lives. We didn't HAVE to, but we did anyhow.

And that is a good thing.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Orion27:
daimoni:
"A more in depth history than the one currently taught in American schools.

Winning the War was great. But we didn't need to drop the Bomb(s). We did it because we wanted to. Not because we had to."

And just What is your revisionist take on things?

Please search this forum for a lengthy thread with "Enola Gay" in the title.

We did a *very* in-depth analysis from various perspectives. I think almost everybody who participated learned something in that thread (one or two notable exceptions dropped in late towards the end of the thread).

-s*

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Please search this forum for a lengthy thread with "Enola Gay" in the title.

We did a *very* in-depth analysis from various perspectives. I think almost everybody who participated learned something in that thread (one or two notable exceptions dropped in late towards the end of the thread).

-s*

Did the search, couldn't find it.

Anyway there's plenty of stuff that's been written about those two bombs back in 45.

Having gone back and forth on the issue, and having read lots about the factors considered at the time, one can't deny:

It ended WWII almost immediately saving countless lives and actually sparing most of Japan.

No nuclear weapons have been detonated in an act of war since - using them at such an early stage may have saved us all, since we have since been aware of what was really at stake.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes we wanted to save thousands of American lives. We didn't HAVE to, but we did anyhow.

And that is a good thing.

True, the US didn't HAVE to drop the bombs. But they did anyway?

Nice.

Christ would be turning in his grave at that sentiment.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gadster:
Christ would be turning in his grave at that sentiment.

BZZT. You obviously have no clue about provisions of War.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BZZT. You obviously have no clue about provisions of War.

Well clue me in.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gadster:
Well clue me in.

Read the Bible. You might learn a lot.

BTW who do you think destroyed Sodom and Gomorra for their wickedness?

Who flooded the earth for the same reason?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by paully dub:
Did the search, couldn't find it.

Enola Gay display angers victims
(FYI: searched only thread titles for "Enola" and "Gay", came up as the only thread)

It's truly worth reading up until page 5 or so.

One of the best threads we ever had on these forums (along with DBGFHRGL )

-s*

[gadster]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Read the Bible. You might learn a lot.

BTW who do you think destroyed Sodom and Gomorra for their wickedness?

Who flooded the earth for the same reason?

Um, the 101st? Al-Qaeda? You tell me, I don't know. wtf?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by gadster:
Um, the 101st? Al-Qaeda? You tell me, I don't know. wtf?

http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm